Darwin, creationism, and religion are also part of a chart comparing the former Soviet Union to the United States, which concludes that 'Naturalism/Evolution/Atheism' lead to people being 'in bondage' and having 'no hope,' while theism leads to 'People of Freedom' and 'People of Hope/Destiny.'

-------------------------------------------------------

Is the US preparing to launch a modern-day version of the crusades or something?

cos there is some warped us logic that is akin to that (it stems from the idea that enemies of america are enemies of christianity and of freedom....whereby they used to derive the insult tirade which included "ungodly, liberal, commie, pinko, n***** loving faggot" often all strung together to level at one person (some americans like to see everything that is against their 'way of life' as all being in the same conspiracy against them.

All wars the US is involved in since Korea have been proxy wars fought on mock-up warzones in the Nevada desert. Those 'Iraqis' you see on the news? Mexicans.

And where do you think all the Chinese-Americans suddenly went in the 1960s? There were 20 million Chinese-Americans listed in the 1964 census. By 1975 this number has 'mysteriously' plummeted to 1.5 million. Still no investigation.

"Im picturing a fully christian army full of volunteers, going over (somewhere) to fight (as publically imagined) an irregular fundamentalist extremist force of muslim anti us fighters/suicide bombers" well.....this isnt sounding all that odd now......the only shame of it is that they will be fighting in countries where the civillians do not feel that fundementalist or evangelical about dying for '?????'until some horror forces them to reconsider..........................

Perhaps the ice melting on the antartic might provide an opportunity.........the UN can ref...........the US sends it evangelical christian fundementalist troops over to antartica, the irregular fundementalists over the world who cannot let 'things that the capitalist evil has done' go can go to get their kicks over in antartica too.......they would go for this cos they know that the people ovcer there are the dangerous ones, so there would be more honour (maybe 100 more virgins in heaven) for killing all those that are christian and avoiding collateral hurt

It is more honourable for everyone if the people who feel they can fight the fight go and do it somewhere that benefits EVERYBODY.

maybe the UN might want to even it up...balance the military power balance to reflect the fact that the environment isnt the same and that currently the US would win hands down in that situatiuon.....the thing is that it would be an honour thing and the agreement that would need to be made would be that the countries must agree to only fight IN antartica, with restricted numbers so that only the bravest most fervent and driven warriors on both sides are engaged in combat.

Yes this sounds like it is a good idea yet impossible to achieve cos of our inability to sanction licenced killing.....but really it is the ideal....isnt it?

wars and conflict are dificult ot end because of some people being able to not just agree to forgive some horror......it is difficult to hate people who have heard or experianced something terrible, for their inability to let it go......yet how else can wards and conflicts stop, anger and the inability to let go of grudges can be a terrible thing for individuals or even small groups.......for groups the sizes of demographics grpoups that are involved in wars and conflict, then it is even worse, because there is rarely a moment where there has not been an incident of horror or sadness that will not go unoticed by those that keeping close to the situation.

It kind of needs an international remedy to try to siphon off some of that blood feudish anger (jingoism, slogans. marches, patriotic news reports all help build national anger....trying to make it as relevent to you as possible)....perhaps if those that cant let it go at least have a place to go and try to enact revenge for that they cannot forgive (they are after all mentally in a sort of pergutory anyway) against that which is your 'enemy' then at least they would then just be fighting against the people that were more likely to have done the things that made you angry in the first place.........both sides mental gods would surely agree this has some merit....that there is more honour in this......if they can find agreement on this then we would be finding a bridge between the wierdly seperated by names, gods of each side.....I mean they both say 'there is but one god and he created the whole world' well then since there can only be one of those then they must be talking about the same bloke? or am I missing something here......perhaps there is a differentiation, but if there is then maybe it is because I am ignorant and ungodly.....that I admit.....so i am willing to recieve instruction on why the pope, why the archbishops, why the holy leaders of islam do not agree on the idea that if there is only one god that created the whole world, then they are talking about the same bloke but with different language and they might also describing different facets of him (revealed differently through the varied viewpoints of differing cultural and human experiance) idea.